It is an interesting phenomenon that while the popular papers hardly give any coverage to India, allegedly on account of lack of popular interest, it is doubtful if ever before so many books were published on our country here as now. To this enormous list was added last week George Patterson’s “Peking Versus Delhi”. It is a notable book because as far as I am aware this is the first time that fairly detailed information on Sino-Indian relations in general, developments in Tibet and on the Sino-Indian border and the Himalayan States of Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim is available under one cover.
As was only to be expected from Mr Patterson, the book is highly controversial. It affords little satisfaction to the Government of India for its handling of the problems of national security that arose following the occupation of Tibet by China. Mr Patterson has discussed in detail how Mr Nehru allowed himself to be outwitted and exploited by the Chinese from the time of the outbreak of the Korean war. He has allowed himself to make statements like the one on the alleged training of Tibetan refugees in the border areas which must embarrass the Government of India, even if they are not strictly true. But one wonders if that is sufficient justification for banning the book. The Government of India seems to have made it a habit of banning books. By these standards it will soon be prohibiting the circulation of another book on the frontier which is due for publication here early next year.
Mr Patterson has all along been sympathetic to the cause of the Nagas and though he resigned from the organisation headed by the Rev. Michael Scott some months ago, his criticism of the Government of India’s handling of the Naga problem figures prominently in the book. He quotes former British officials in support of the Naga claim that part of the area occupied by them was never effectively administered by the British. Though he does not explicitly support the demand of the Naga rebels for independence, this section of the book seriously weakens his criticism of Mr Nehru’s general policy towards Peking, in that with troubles on his side of the frontier he could not but seek peace and friendship with China in the hope of avoiding Chinese intervention and, if that failed, of at least buying time.
Personally I find the sections on Bhutan and Sikkim most disturbing. Since Mr Patterson has spent nearly ten years in those parts which no other writer, Indian or foreign, has done, his assessment cannot be easily ignored. For instance, according to him, the Bhutanese Army which was supposed to number 2,500 with a ceiling of 20,000, was only a militia which was occasionally issued with guns for a few days after which the guns were returned to the headman and the men returned to their fields. The training was in the hands of three junior lieutenants who returned from the Dehra Dun military academy in 1958-59. Also he asserts that the Government of India refused to give the Bhutanese Prime Minister a written guarantee about the State’s defence.
In view of the obvious importance of Bhutan to the security of India, the explicit refusal by the Chinese to discuss Bhutan’s border with Indian officials and their historical claims of suzerainty, the developments in Bhutan are of great importance. It is true that New Delhi’s role in Bhutan can at best be advisory, but the people in India are entitled to know the facts of the situation or somebody should effectively refute Mr Patterson’s assertions. In the case of Sikkim, the Government of India does not have this alibi of having nothing to do with internal developments and Mr Patterson paints quite a disturbing picture of the scene there as well.
Aksaichin
Incidentally Mr Patterson believes that the Aksaichin road has no particular significance in relation to Tibet, and thus he does not accept the view that the Chinese claims in the North-East Frontier Agency is only a bargaining counter to be traded against the Chinese ownership of Aksaichin. According to him the 3,000-mile supply line from north-west China through Sinkiang and the plateau of west Tibet would be exposed to the same threat of destruction as the Lanchow Lhasa railway line, the Lhasa Chando and eastern Tibet roads were during the 1957-59 uprising.
Recently the Reader’s Digest Association conducted a survey in six countries of the Common Market and Britain and one of the questions related to what different peoples thought of themselves and of others. The consensus was the British were cold, stiff, disciplined, scientific, hardworking and reliable. The British assessment of themselves: reliable, hardworking conscientious and pleasure-loving.
Not many in India would agree that the British are pleasure-loving in spite of the flood of publicity regarding the Profumo affair. Generally we think of the British as a drab, steady, unimaginative pipe-smoking and dog-loving people whose great pleasures are a round of golf at the week-end and a fur-lined pair of slippers in front of the fire in the evening. Facts should dispose of this myth now. The British view of themselves as a pleasure-loving people is fairly accurate.
The British engage in twice as much leisure activities as the other West Europeans and they eat nearly twice as much as their neighbours. In Britain more people die of heart trouble on account of overweight than of any other trouble. In France (general view of them: pleasure loving, gay, amorous and romantic with the Dutch and Belgians adding lazy to the list) 27 per cent of the people dine out and in Britain 45 per cent.
The men in Britain use more hair cream than any other European country. Their consumption of bath salts is exceeded only by the Germans. The women in Britain use more perfume or scent and lipstick than their European counterparts and almost twice as much talcum. There are more transistors and cameras in this country than in any other neighbouring one. In 1962 the British people set a record in beer drinking: 1005 million gallons, roughly 20 gallons for every man, woman and child. The number of convictions due to drunkenness rose by 12 per cent to 85,000.
If you are still unconvinced, six million young men and women go dancing in this country. This year they will have spent 250 million pounds on dancing. There are 1,000 dance halls and 10,000 dance theatres to cater for them. White ties and tails and fairy tale dresses made of 80 yards of net go with the boom in dancing. In London alone at least half a million young men are estimated to have tails and the number in Yorkshire and Lancashire is not below it.
Prosperity
Most visitors from India via the Continent bring the impression that the Germans are more prosperous than the British. Facts do not support them. In Britain, for instance, 72 per cent possess electric vacuum cleaners and 91 per cent electric irons and in Germany 66 and 87 per cent, respectively. The fifties were the decade of the durable consumers and the demand for them was responsible to a large degree for the economic growth.
Prosperity, however, creates problems. In Britain “the monster, we love” is the car. Today there are 10 million vehicles, two-thirds of them cars. By 1970 the number of vehicles will rise to 18 million, by 1980, 27 million and by 2000, 40 million. This is a nightmare if there was ever one. Unless drastic measures are taken, the car threatens to choke British society to death in a kind of mechanical embolism.
A report in this connection was out last week and even if the measures, including city centres developed two to three levels that it has recommended began to be implemented right now, life in Britain vis-à-vis the traffic problem cannot be other than a developing hell. If not possession, the use of cars in city centres will have to be controlled.
The Times of India, 15 December 1963